close
close
orange

Iran must be held accountable for its attack on Israel

Vaseline

The Iranian ayatollah regime attacked Israel directly from its own territory, deploying hundreds of UAVs, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

This was a significant departure from the usual Iranian approach through proxies in the region.

Despite Iranian leaders claiming the attack was in response to an Israeli assault near the Iranian embassy in Damascus, the reasons for this shift in approach are much more complex than they seem.

Clearly, Khamenei did not expect the Israeli response to turn out this way.

A global defense coalition was formed (including the US, Britain, France, Jordan and others) to support Israel and effectively repel the unprecedented attack, which in turn humiliated Iran and exposed inherent weaknesses in its offensive defense capabilities.

Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaks during a meeting with the commanders of the Iranian Armed Forces in Tehran, Iran, April 21, 2024. (credit: Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS )

These capabilities include Israel’s multi-layered defense system, built up over decades: Arrow, David’s Sling, Iron Dome, Patriot, interceptor aircraft and others.

The coalition intercepted more than 95% of threats, while Israel intercepted most of them. The few threats that did come through caused little significant damage.

Iran must still be held accountable for their attack

However, this does not alter the need to hold Iran accountable for its extraordinary attack. The Israeli response, which was immediate but also intended to have a lasting impact, was not based on the success of the attack, but on Iran’s intention to cause destruction.

In a previous article, I suggested that Israel could respond by targeting one or more of the following: infrastructure targeted against Israel, such as UAV and cruise missile factories, Iranian infrastructure assets (such as oil, gas, pipelines), or the nuclear program. focusing on the weapons program and its leading scientists.

This could also send a signal about Israeli capabilities, possibly even targeting a symbolic icon of the Iranian regime or government.

According to foreign reports, Israel independently decided on and implemented the nature, scale and timing of the response. Israel informed its closest ally, the US, but did not ask for permission or participation.

The Israeli response reportedly included striking key elements in Iran’s defense infrastructure, such as the fire control radar of a Russian S-300 battery, which is considered the culmination of the systems Russia has supplied to Iran to protect its nuclear facilities and other strategic locations to protect. This also included other radar systems.

Viewed positively, this attack can be seen as a brilliant example of an ‘eye for an eye’ approach, albeit with a sophisticated Israeli twist.

Despite its limited scope, it may seem too weak or disproportionate to some Israelis compared to the massive Iranian attack.

Yet Israel’s technological and operational capabilities, demonstrated in defending against the massive Iranian attack, were again on display, this time in the offensive response.

To demonstrate capabilities and send a message without the intent to punish or seriously damage specific infrastructure, a limited but strategic strike deep inside Iran against critical defense systems may suffice.

As it stands, Israel appears to have triumphed both on defense and on offense.

With far less than a tenth of Iran’s strike force, the damage caused and message conveyed far outweighed Iran’s performance.

It is important to emphasize that Israel responded despite US pressure not to do so, and that the US provided unprecedented security assistance shortly after the attack.

This suggests that, despite American reluctance to endorse a direct response, they did not interfere with Israel’s actions.

Iran attacked an Israeli air base, while Israel targeted an Iranian air base.

Israel’s attack in return

The Iranian attack was intended to damage aircraft and auxiliary capabilities, while the Israeli response, according to reports, launched missiles that hit defense systems.

This demonstrated to the Iranians and Russians that their defense systems are not invulnerable and may not even be able to protect themselves. This serves as a message to Iranians, Russians and Americans alike.

Although Israel did not target Iranian nuclear facilities or their supporting infrastructure, the areas attacked were near key strategic nuclear facilities, including the conversion plant and the enriched uranium warehouse.

This sends a clear message: “Your defenses are penetrable, and next time the target could be your nuclear infrastructure.”

Despite the clear messages conveyed by Israel’s response, the balance remains uneven.

It is critical to maintain the focus on Gaza to achieve the objectives of the war, including Rafah, the Philadelphia route, and to address the situation in the north, while at the same time continuing to work to prevent that Iran is exploiting regional chaos to advance its nuclear program.

The ‘ring of fire’ that Iran has built around Israel over the years is showing cracks due to Iranian miscalculations.

Israel must take advantage of this momentum and begin dismantling this “ring of fire” while building an international coalition.

However, it is crucial to recognize that a defensive coalition could work, but there is little hope for an offensive coalition against Iran. Israel must rely on itself.

Brigadier General (Res.) Jacob Nagel is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and professor at the Technion. He was Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s national security advisor and acting chief of the national security staff.



Related Posts